July 3, 2011

"'... We understand the public has lost respect for some justices and perhaps even come to doubt the court's credibility. We understand there are bitter divisions that occasionally explode into personal attacks. We agree with the public that physical attacks have no place in the court. More important, we understand the need to do something. We're going to spend a weekend on retreat with a mediator who will help us deal with our differences so that they don't ever again blow up into physical attacks or fistfights or chokeholds or altercations that demean this office.'"

Asks the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. How can you write that out and not immediately see the answer to your own question? Judges just don't do things like that. It would be great for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to figure out a way to look like... a court. (And by "court," I mean the ideal of a court possessed by ordinary citizens who care about the role of the courts in a democratic system.) But a news conference like that wouldn't seem judicial at all. Bringing in an outside mediator, turning yourselves into a geriatric therapy group — how can talking about that work?

Judges are supposed to work out their human frailty problems outside of public view. Which is why the "chokehold" incident should never have been leaked to the press. That's why my writing on the subject has focused on who leaked and why. I would like to think that it was someone other than one of the Justices, someone who didn't understand the stakes for the prestige of the court. If it was, in fact, one of the Justices, what was the reason? Why would you damage the reputation of the court like that instead of working on resolving the problems quietly internally?

And don't tell me: Because choking somebody is a serious crime! If it were that straightforward, the choker should have been arrested — or the charge should have come to light — shortly after the incident. Instead, a politically partisan journalist broke the story 12 days later. Someone made a decision to go public through him, and that makes it look like a political tactic. Is that someone a supreme court justice? Intolerable.

Ann makes a great point. The most important part is not about the details of the incident. It is about who leaked the story and why. Would Bradley and/or Abramson be so stupid as to think they could tar Prosser with the allegation without raising the issue of Bradley's conduct and the obvious negative effect on the image of the court?

I find the "rules" of journalism on confidential sources often to be ridiculous, but her, if Bradley leaked the story, and then subsequently came out publicly with her account, doesn't that mean it is fair game for the "journalist" to let the public know whether it was Bradley who leaked the story to him? And, since the professed reason for confidentialy - protect professional relationshis -- is not moot, what affect should that have on the promise of confidentiality?

Of course, the "journalist" is neither objective nor interested in communicating the truth to the public, and he also is interested in preserving sources, so it is highly unlikely that he will ever help in disclosing the truth about the leaker (or anything else). Isn't it strange, although entirely appropriate, that the journalist who broke the story winds up diminished by the entire affair?

Someone made a decision to go public through him, and that makes it look like a political tactic. Is that someone a supreme court justice? Intolerable.

Regardless of who initially contacted Lueders, it's obvious that all the justices involved knew he was working on this story and that it would come out at least a few days in advance.

Since he's a partisan political hack, it's reasonable to assume that Lueders would have have killed the story if one of the liberal justices - Bradley or Abrahamson - had asked him to. But apparently they didn't. What does that tell you?

Justices battling and slurring each other is just fine, as long as there are no arrests, and it occurs w/o the public knowing, according to Althouse.

But, don't let the public know that their Justices are nuts, that's intolerable, according to Althouse.

The case for phony governance, by Althouse.

Myself, I'd like to know when these folks are nuts. I'd like to know the truth about them. Unlike Althouse, I'm opposed to promoting highly skilled liar Justices who effectively hide truth. I'm for less hiding and deception by the court, not more or better lying. I, unlike Althouse, think that a court's legitimacy needs to be deserved, based on reality.

"...someone who didn't understand the stakes for the prestige of the court."

Screw that. If these folks are crazy enough to have lost their ability to reason/discuss/argue and exercise better judgement, then it's better that this stuff be brought to light. Chances are this is an indicator that one or more of these "judges" aren't, or haven't been, capable of rational thought processes for awhile. There's human "frailty", and then there's batshit crazy.

Better to shine an unflattering light on "prestige" so the people can clean house. Sadly, the good people of Wisconsin may be just as crazy if the coverage on this blog has been accurate.

"Someone made a decision to go public through him, and that makes it look like a political tactic."

Let's get something straight. It doesn't just "APPEAR" to be a political tactic. It actually IS a political tactic.

There are members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court who are conspiring hand-in-hand with George Soros-funded socialist groups to frame Justice Prosser.

Their intent is to get him off the court by any means at their disposal. If they can provoke him and get his reaction on film, they'll do that.

Their goal is to alter the balance of power on the court in order to change laws they don't like. They're angry that Prosser defeated Kloppenburg and they want to reverse that defeat by having Prosser committed to some sort of involuntary mental health regime.

Eventually, they'll just accuse him of sexual harassment or some other sex crime that features a "he said, she said" dynamic.

There are Supreme Court Justices who are conspiring to undermine the court. Of that, there can be no doubt. ONLY Justices were in the room at the time that Judge Bradley bumrushed Judge Prosser with fists raised.

And so, only Supreme Court Justices could have been the original sources to this "story" presented by the Soros-funded Wisconsin Center for Yellow Journalism.

The impartiality of this court and its rulings has been seriously damaged by these rogue justices using the media to exact revenge for their electoral losses. No member of the public can be assured that the rulings of this court are based in fact and in law. No, it's obvious that this court is compromised and that the people cannot have faith that justice is blind in this courtroom.

It's sickening that these justices would be conspiring with outside political actors against another sitting judge.

But what is worse is that the media are covering it up by granting these sources anonymous status.

Prosser assaulted a journalist. A Fox journalist. On camera. Grabbing the microphone out of a journalist's hand is a criminal act.If he has that little control, I don't think it's the entire court that needs a weekend retreat.

Grabbing a microphone is "violence", but smashing windows, trashing the Capitol, issuing death threats, waving swastikas and shouting down 14-year old girls is "healthy debate". What did this country ever do to deserve Madison?

Justice Prosser went to the Judicial Committee, and filed a complaint!

What's in his complaint?

By the way, in all probability "grandma" called Loo-ders. Not Bradley. "Grandma" has the connections. Bradley's known as a loose canon!

You also know Chief Tubbs was called in not 48 hours later.

The "issue" came up on a Monday, at about 5:30 PM. With 4 justices looking for "grandma." When she was found to be hiding out in Bradley's chamber. 4 justices standing at the doorway! Two seated petunias.

Crook was not there. By 5:30 PM, for him, it would have been overtime.

Tubbs is the "stand in" for Justice Prosser ... and now ALL 7 justices are together. And, it's a meeting!

Bradley shows Tubbs (who is standing), how Prosser grabbed her neck, and gave her (not a noogie), but a choke hold.

And, Justice Roggensack (or one of the other witnesses) shot out: NO! THERE WAS NO CHOKE HOLD!

Tubbs looked around the room, and realized there was NO CHOKE HOLD CASE! (He didn't know the Judiciary Committee has received some sort of charge to investigate! But it's Prosser who filed!

And, it's Abrahamson who is very worried that "grandma's" fingerprints are gonna show up on the evidence.

Here we are. In July. Over a long holiday weekend. And, the story is still alive!

I say this because right here ... there are millions of people who have heard the story ... because they've already bookmarked Ann's site.

Lots of people. Hard to bury this story, now.

And, it won't be cured by some phony love-in.

That request, that Justice Prosser needs "anger management" ... or some New Age type of "retreat" got shot down on Wednesday. When Tubbs left. And, Bradley tried to provoke this crazy happening ... So, again, she was shot down.

Won't be good enough until she resigns. The only question remaining is ... does Abrahamson shove her under the bus?

OFF TOPIC: Obama was on the freeway, leaving his Philly event ... when the Presidential Seal flew off his car's door.

The worrying gets sillier and sillier. Maybe the justices despise each other. Maybe half of them are short-tempered cranks and the others are arrogant harridans. So let them be that way. It doesn't necessarily keep them from doing their jobs.

This holier-than-thou caterwauling reminds me of the way the most naive of sports writers fret about team spirit and clubhouse camaraderie. There are teams full of players who despise each other, yet win championships.

One of the many stupid things that the boomers have foisted on our country is the therapeutic culture. In the 1950s, we had Marines marching down the Korean peninsula. By 1972, we had Woody Allen kvetching to an upper West side psychologist about all of the problems that come with being rich and privileged.

The old school WASPs weren't perfect, but, God, I miss their sense of discretion and decorum.

As Ann notes at the end of her post, "a politically partisan journalist broke the story 12 days later. Someone made a decision to go public through him, and that makes it look like a political tactic."

That's what all this is. Political.

And it's the results of judges placed on the bench for the sole reason of their loyalty to an agenda.

pbAndj said...

Ha Ha

Dignified Justice, as defined by Althouse.

What a crock!

As Fen noted in the looong thread, the "reporter" shoved the mic at Prosser as if he were expecting him to take it.

When Arthur Anderson self-destructed over its "practices" at Enron (inter alia), CPA's were aghast--aghast, I say--over the "image" of CPA's. These are the same people who are famous for the response "What do you WANT to pay?" [in taxes] with the clear implication and intent of arranging matters to meet that goal. Uh-huh. "Image."

Parallel is SCOWI, where lawyers are equally aghast!! Aghast!!!!!

Actual, real, normal people see these workplace foibles every single day. They understand them for what they are: a manifestation of human nature.

It's not really a big deal. GKChesterton probably has an aphorism that covers it, too.

"it was someone other than one of the Justices, someone who didn't understand the stakes for the prestige of the court."

How can someone write that out and not see what the problem is?

The problem is not simply that we found out. In fact, part of the reason it even happened at all may be that the justices involves expected we would never find out. We all do our worst when we think we will not be seen.

I've mentioned before that I never see this kind of crap among business people who are often not victims of higher education, but a good percentage of lawyers I've worked with have blown up to silly levels over simple business disputes, even when it's not their money at stake.

Perhaps it comes from the naivete remaining after experience and training in a profession that does it's violence through nonphysical means.

The respect the public has for its courts should be based on facts and not ignorance. If a judge commit actions that lower the esteem of that judge or the court in the eyes of the public, so be it. Respect should be earned, not simply asserted. Actions that reflect negatively on that respect should not be hidden from the public.

As for an arrest, a prosecutor would be crazy to arrest a sitting justice unless they had a high degree of confidence that the prosecution would succeed. Not something to make a rush judgment about.

I have never admired, but now have come to view with utter distaste the contemptuous attitude that somehow, in some manner, a person either elected or friggin' *assigned* a position of judgeship magically becomes something more than human.

Ah for the good old Faulknerian days when respectable families kept their crazy uncle (and in the Wisconsin Supreme Court's case two crazy aunts) locked up in the attic.

I'll spot you Prosser as a crazy uncle --although I don't think he is one--and raise you a Bradley and an Abrahamson.

Very few State Supreme Courts rise to the level of greatness--as defined by their ability to exert widespread influence over the development of the law. Chief Justice Roger Traynor's California Supreme Court in the 1950's and 1960's was one such court. But most State Supreme Courts manage to avoid taking a public ride in the clown car. Can't say that about Chief Justice Abrahamson who, along with Justice Bradley, seems to be at the wheel here.

Back to the doorway. Where you have 4 standing justices. Looking at their chief. Sitting in Bradley's office. Hoping NOT to be found!

When Bradley rises with fists flying.

We've heard her complaint.

And, we also heard from another justice that Bradley was lying.

We also know that another justice stepped to Bradley's back ... to pull the flying moonbat off of Prosser.

What complaint did Prosser file with the Judiciary Committee?

Is Shirley Abrahamson's grandma game so good she's untouchable?

Has the press been working overtime to portray "grandma?"

Is this a tactic that frightens off the Judiciary Committee?

Why else is any of this in play?

As to making a case against Prosser over the "mic grab," it won't work. Because the outtakes will show that Lowe was in pursuit. And, should have been knocked cold to the floor. But security never came.

Among the outcomes? Security better show up in force! Or come August 1st ... when the court starts, again ... you may see the same violence that got bred at the Capitol rotunda, repeating here.

This situation is a prime example of the basic problem with electing judges. It is the end of the slippery slope of politicizing the judiciary.

Ann, I have been unable to find what the exact system is in Wisconsin. I read its Constitution which doesn't offer much guidance. Are elections universal through all level? Appointment then periodical review elections?

But the reporting becomes the reality (to channel a now-forgotten New-Age Guru: We, The Media are the Message! PS I know the words of original quote). We the Great Oz Media will make it seem that something happened, or, more precisely, that something BAD happened because of some actions, real or imagined, of a non-Liberal & perhaps get this non-Liberal we’ve been trying to get off the court, well, off the court. Or, at least, make his decisions a nullity in the court of (bien pensant Liberal) public opinion. Or we will dictate a weekend retreat for these folks to keep the pot stirring as if something happened.

And we will marginalize or ignore bloggers who do not follow our orders! Or tell the public what these bloggers are really saying, in order for us to get to the deeper truth of what they really mean when they attack our self-evident truths.

@Roy The justices are elected and have 10 year terms, but the governor has the power to fill vacancies by appointment. So sometimes a new justices begins by appointment and sometimes by election. But these are elective offices, as a matter of state constitutional law.

And, Prosser goes to the Judiciary within 48 hours of this "blown out of proportion" event.

My understanding is that Prosser went to the judiciary right before the story broke. Which is two weeks after the "event."

The interesting thing in the editorial is the argument that if Bradley rushed him with fists raised, she has to resign.

Ann is absolutely right. The leakers put themselves into a box and now the people who have worked themselves into an outrage must be appeased. The paper is saying whoever started it should leave the Court. Oops.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt said...Prosser assaulted a journalist. A Fox journalist. On camera. Grabbing the microphone out of a journalist's hand is a criminal act.===================Bwaahhhh!!

Yes, it is right in Wisc Code!

"113.89 - While in normal stranger on stranger encounter in a public place, one party that sticks something in one parties face ,may be asked to desist or made to desist - there are two exceptions.113.89.a - Due to the 1st Amendment - an accredited journalist may stick a microphone, cigarette, food item, male member, camera, or any other object in any strangers face. Anywhere, at anytime.113.89.b - Any member of a state-recognized union engaged in organizing activities or 1st Amendment protest may grab materials offensive to them without fear of police interference under Wisc Code 288.1 Subchapters 3,4a, 5c governing interference with union activities. But like journalists, union members are privileged under special status under the 1st Amendment. 113.89.b allows legitimate union member to have the right to stick anything they want in a stranger's face in public places.

And any party physically removing any object stuck in their face by parties privileged under 113.89 a & b, when verbal requests to desist are ignored, is defined as 3rd degree criminal assault. urnalists or one's face removed

Alas, Cedarford, the Fox outtakes would probably destroy Lowe's credibility. Plus, you'd also find out who pressed the elevator's 'door open' button ... So that Prosser would have to turn his head to the wall. (Quickly, though, he did a better maneuver than grabbing the asshole whose hands were on the 'door open' button.

If anyone thinks Prosser "can be charged with criminal activity" ... they know nothing of what lawyers can do with "discovery."

For a newspaper editorial to suggest such a thing tells me - just as a mention of "Gaia" in a discussion of AGW does - that I'm on the right track in my discussion/investigation/whatever of NewAge. It, and thus I, am at the very center of almost every debate going on in this country, and all I've got to do is stay standing and I'll be able to open this whole can of worms up.

I definitely ain't going to shut up about it when I, soon, step from behind your computer screens.

Wisconsin, being a Democratic stronghold, is also a NewAge hub. It's culture is defined by such thinking. There's really no getting around it, no matter how many other things people want to point to, instead. They are merely the symptoms of it.

I went into my archives and found Blair Warren's The Dark Side Of Creating Our Own Reality. I think it explains why this is happening as it's happening pretty well - including why there's no apology, or reasonable explanation forthcoming - especially this part:

When one lives by the idea that “we create our own reality,” it becomes very tempting to play fast and loose with what society accepts as the truth.

For example, one might feel entitled to play with generally accepted definitions and understandings to suit one’s own purposes, knowing full well that others will be misled in the process. Then, when others cry foul, the “reality creator” need only dismiss the accusations as others’ points-of-view.

This gives the “reality creator,” in essence, a license to lie without ever feeling any guilt for doing so. After all, if each of us is solely responsible for creating our own reality, then why should the “reality creator” ever feel guilt for something other people feel?

Given this philosophy, they shouldn’t. And apparently they don’t.

Madison, Wisconsin is almost an entire TOWN infected with this thinking. The "Wisconsin Death Cult" of the here and now. What they're bumping into is what Rush calls "Realville" where the rest of us live. And, I'm happy to say, we're not going anywhere. And they aren't either.

proud2bateacher - Jul 02, 2011 11:59 PM» Report abuse 33Laughable. Where is the "we made a mistake" editorial from you MJS for backing the moron Prosser? You want to somehow indict Justice Abrahamson? For what - being quiet now that things have risen to the level they have?

You cannot have it both ways. You think you somehow have the expertise and authority to make recommendations, but then you are hands off when things head south - why not just report the news and quit trying to cater to the conservatives from Waukesha County who (while not only being able to rig elections) are too dumb, too stupid, or otherwise rich enough to actually pay for your rag to be delivered.

KTinWI - Jul 03, 2011 7:38 AM» Report abuse 13Yeah, that's it, JS... Walker is the embodiment of a peacemaker. After all, look at what he's accomplished on behalf of unity and bipartisanship in our great state in just six short months. I can't believe you included his gratuitous comment in this editorial. Wait, maybe I can... November is fast approaching. You must rehabilitate this buffoon before his recall.

Wisconsin, being a Democratic stronghold, is also a NewAge hub. LOL. You're a fucking idiot Crack.

Sure, Garage, that's why they made special room for the yoga cult during the demonstrations, right? Not one person said, "Get out of here - you'll destroy our credibility!" No, they made a special place for them, because they thought that 5,000 year old "spiritual" practice would do something "spiritual" for their cause - just as they thought, decades ago, they could levitate the pentagon.

Making inroads into other communities is the whole point, you dipshit.

Alex,

Crack - news for ya... most people don't give a shit about New Age.

That's why I'm part of an anti-NewAge community of bloggers. Because nobody cares.

Also most do yoga for the stretching. Why don't you do yoga or are you too manly for flexibility?

And what did we do to stretch before the yoga cult reached critical mass, Alex? I've been stretching my whole life and never had to resort to yoga - what happened to just stretching? And why is it so all-important now that we do yoga?

Might the big conspiracy be less about the current judges and more about the larger picture? (Hint: the larger picture = planning years in advance to restore union power.)

In other words, let's broadcast the current court's dysfunction. The initial results of the broadcast don't matter. If judges lose their robes or not, the important part is to make sure everyone knows the WI State Supreme Court is a MESS. The court was picked via elections, therefore elections created a M!E!S!S!. Might this series of "scandals"/dysfunctions be a perfect platform for someone to push for a switch from elections to appointments?

Then, a decade down the road (when Walker has presumably been replaced by a Democrat), it will be far easier to flip the court to a strong Democrat majority -- which will be a huge asset when the unions eventually try to reset state laws to restore their power.

Prosser winning didn't just mess up the current situation for the Dems -- it proved to them that they can't guarantee election wins. Therefore, elections must be stopped.

No, all the courts were damaged when the Left decided that the proper response to losing at the ballot box was to get judges to violate their oaths of office and rewrite the law, rather than enforce it.

All the rest is the inevitable fallout from that decision. Because you have to be a pretty sleazy human being to violate your own oath of office like that. Which pretty much describes Bradley and Abrahamson, and Judge Sumi for that matter. Not just the political smear against Prosser, but pretty much everything they do on the bench.

While I appreciate your concern for the dignity of the Court, I'd rather have dignified Justices.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is a zoo. Abrahamson's dissent in the collective bargaining case amply demonstrated she's unfit to be Chief Justice.

If I'm wrong about this next point, I'll welcome the correction ....

Weren't the four justices (including Prosser) looking for Abrahamson that Monday evening because it appeared she was reneging on their agreement as to when the Collective Bargaining opinion would be released?

Given Abrahamson was in the minority in the case, the interests and desires of the majority - ESPECIALLY when the majority's opinion considered and rejected Abrahamson's "we need to wait and brief this up more completely" argument - really should have been paramount. In that scenario, a Chief - if she wants to be a credible leader - cannot be seen to be stalling; she lost, fair & square, and it would be an abuse of her authority to "pick up her ball & go home" by delaying the release of the opinion.

My sense (from a distance)

Abrahamson isn't a leader. While she doesn't have to respect the people sitting in the other 6 seats of the Court, she has to respect the SEATS. Abrahamson doesn't; she plays favorites & she looks to punish / frustrate her enemies.

Prosser is her primary enemy. His biggest problem is he's allowed Abrahamson & Bradley to become his enemies. They get under his skin - and they should not. Sometimes, you have to look at someone who tries to provoke you and say to yourself "Well, she's an idiot, and I'm not going to let the opinion of an idiot affect how I live my life."

Bradley & Abrahamson are thick as thieves. They're "buddies," ideologically and, probably, personally. And they're political - very, very political. Bradley charged Prosser (for the rest of you - that's what I believe happened, deal with it) because Prosser had "called Abrahamson on it" - you don't call self-righteous types on their game playing, they get all huffy, etc.

The irony in all this .... Prosser was, in effect, trying to play the "peacemaker." 3 of the 4 in the majority wanted the opinion released immediately, Prosser was the one who was willing to wait a bit to try to work something out with Abrahamson.

Crack. The new age business is so pervasive and powerful that even many of the saner commenters do not perceive its influence and its implication in the death of logic and common sense. Because at its core new ageism is three card monte the art of telling you that what you see is not what you see and that a feeling trumps a fact. Once you get it, however, you cannot un get it.

Probably the best line in a comment here in a long time:Very few State Supreme Courts rise to the level of greatness--as defined by their ability to exert widespread influence over the development of the law. ... But most State Supreme Courts manage to avoid taking a public ride in the clown car.

Ann is absolutely right. The leakers put themselves into a box and now the people who have worked themselves into an outrage must be appeased. The paper is saying whoever started it should leave the Court. Oops. houston personal injury attorney